tv [untitled] May 2, 2012 4:30am-5:00am PDT
open there, the children are coming there, -- children are going to the park to study there, and the disrespect, not just the sound but going into the school there, but inhaling all of the toxins in this area, this is ridiculous. i hope you will listen and do something about what the people are saying that live there. no one seems to be listening, to get the feeling of the people who live in this area. thank you. >> i am anna, a resident of san francisco, and an operator of tour buses. i enjoy working in this field, from 40 years ago.
we were able to do a beautiful city tour of san francisco and show people how beautiful that this city was. little by little, the places were taken away from us. we could not show the presidio, or bring buses in to show the beautiful view, coming into the golden gate to see the golden gate bridge. you cannot go to someone places in the city, and this is very sad. i complement supervisor chu, for the first time the board of supervisors to come together with the residents and the torah operators to try to find a solution so that we can show this beautiful city and at the same time not frustrate all of these people. i support during a summit and really talking instead of rushing this through until we find a solution where everyone is happy across the city.
[applause] >> i am emily and i am a resident of alamo square park. thank you for the opportunity to speak today. my husband and i own a home up from alamo square park. the tour buses parked in front of my house and sometimes they drive around, or sometimes they're parked in the bus stop when i am waiting for the 21. we are lucky enough to live in an area, with the lights of san francisco. and the view of san francisco behind it. a tourist attraction is by definition, something that attracts tourists. and with the tourists bring to our neighborhoods, more
biculturalism -- multiculturalism. rather than legislate this problem, we should make this a better option to take, and still, some people will only take the bus. maybe they don't speak the language or they are not physically mobile. or maybe they're just intimidated traveling in a big city. one of these people may be a photographer. in the place that they are from. or they may be an entrepreneur who falls in love with the well- kept park, and so we benefit from sharing the neighborhood with these tests. and limiting the kind of buses that people can take to our neighborhood to limit the number of visitors. and this reduces our chances of bringing new people with exciting ideas to the city and
the neighborhood. thank you. >> and is there any additional public comment? >> edward mason. i would like to discuss the commuter buses. this is a regional issue, and i made the agreement to reduce the vehicle miles traveled. this would increase the number of shuttle buses. local-bus is that we experience, our bosses, they attempted to go down 23rd street. they bought this down in chattanooga. and the disruption. they make wide turns.
they obstruct traffic because if they have to make the right hand turn, the half of this is in the muni bus zone. you have noisy engines in the hills, and the tax deductibility. commuting is not tax-deductible but they take this as a tax deduction. we subsidize this as taxpayers. we have various operators with lux bus and royal coach tours from san jose. you have disruptions of traffic on guerrerro at 24th. the zone for three-ton limits. these buses stop on guerrero and
disrupt traffic. this is an example of muni that occurs with the t.e.p. and muni. this was at 24th. the commuter bus goes in. at 24th street and castro. the commuter bus was in the bus zone. >> seeing none, public comment is closed. >> thank you for coming out andy vsospeaking. let me ask if president chu or supervisor olague -- >> i appreciate you for saying this items. there are two -- we have discussion of this and i am
supportivfe of dialog. i don't support a summit that would delay moving forward. we move this to a couple of weeks. and when i first sat down with a tour bus operators, they had many concerns from neighbors. this is been a year, a year and a half. we can pull something -- someone together, we need to move forward. i do have a few questions.
there are laws on the books that we will need additional enforcement. mr. robbins, could you talk about the plans the mta has for this? we should have them come back in a couple of weeks to have a topic and a real plan for enforcement. >> enforcement is a big challenge. i hear these complaints by telephone frequently. the concept a year ago was to issue, and not allow buses to the operate in san francisco without permits. this is a way to collect some fees to pay for the enforcement.
this would also be a huge project to issue all of those permits, and identify all of these buses. this would not be too much of a problem. the buses that come from arizona and texas, it is difficult to do this. and they purchase the permit, this is something that we are exploring. this is the strategy we are applying also. >> one thing i would say in relation to that comment, we still need better ideas. we have to talk about how we enforce the rules that we have here.
there is a standard principle in government. the industry is being regulated. we are making sure that we do the right thing -- we talked about this as well. you talk about the ultimate draft for bus plan. if it is possible to help circulate this plan, there is the implementation and when this was supposed to happen, given how much time is past. this will deal with the quality of life issues faced by our neighbors. i know the supervisor olague has comments.
i would like to continue item four to two weeks, to the 14th. for item 3, if you can continue that at the call of the chair. to calendar that to the 14th of may. the department of public health. with regards to noise. and if i could ask for the appropriate fee notice. >> thank you. i will check the scheduling for may 14. i don't think it should be a problem. >> we have a lot of people who care about the issue and we want to make sure when the date is. >> let me check, quickly. let's go to supervisor olague. supervisor olague: i want to
thank the neighbors for their work on this. it bothers me a little bit that so much of this has been placed on the neighbors. this relates to alamo square. and the impacts on the neighborhood alone. we want to continue these conversations with the mta. i know that you drafted the study. and with the association to take this to the next level and discuss the idea of prohibiting the buses in certain -- around certain blocks of that neighborhood.
there is the five, the 24, this requires some connection. it is time to have that conversation at least. and it is not uncommon to see these types of prohibitions in certain neighborhoods. this is a reasonable task here. i would like to start this conversation with the mta, and i believe this is your jurisdiction to look at these routes, and then, at some point, even though i am not a member of this committee i would like to be part of the conversation, with the tour bus operators, to talk about the city-wide policies, and some of these other issues. i would like to thank people --
and supervisor mar for scheduling this hearing and would like to, apart from that have this conversation with the mta, and with the neighbors about those possibilities. thank you. and at some time i would like to have a conversation that just focuses on the shuttles. south of the market, at the north beach, i would like to move in with these associations, and i would like to check in with them to see their thoughts on this issue. supervisor wiener.: i want to thank everyone who came out today. with respect to the shuttle's, i
want to say, as the transportation has already -- the employee shuttles, with the services that they provide. and the shovels, trying to get them on the street because they have gone on to deal with some of these issues, blocking many stops and idling for too long. we will continue to work with that. i want to make certain that we do not lump in the tour buses with the shuttle's because these are different issues. >> the impact that they have, -- >> finally, i think that i am open to the idea of a summit, and the city-wide conversation.
and the findings to continue that conversation about alamo square. >> thank you, everyone. president shoe is going to reiterate the motion. >> i would appreciate if you can continue item #4 for 2 weeks, and continued item 32 the call of the chair in case the regulatory structure does not work. and then, to calendar 120405 for two weeks from today. so we can deal with the department of public health and noise. >> so moved. and can we do this without objection? thank you. and thank you everyone for coming out. >> what action which like to take on item number two?
>> let's continue that back to the call of the chair as well. can we do that without objection? miss miller, please call item no. 5 and 6 together. >> the ordinance amending the planning code, preservation of historic architecture and aesthetic landmarks. order of the committee of the planning total, preservation of buildings, and districts of architectural and historical importance. >> and the sponsor is supervisor weiner. >> let's ask >> let's ask the people can clear the room as quickly as possible and we will begin in a few moments.
updating the article that i have not been updated in decades. as a result of passage of time and changes in practice as well as the adoption by the voters of the proposition j. and updating is necessary. this legislation has been subject to no fewer than 25 public hearings. today being the 26 public hearing. last year, i made a number of proposals for making articles 10 and 11 even better by making them more inclusive of impacted communities and by crafting
local applications -- or requiring the craft of local applications of the national preservation standards to the san francisco unique urban environment. this is an important opportunity for our city to step back and discuss our historic preservation and fit into our complex and wonderful environment. we recognize it is important to have history while we change and evolve and grow. articles 10 and 11 are part of that model. i support preservation. i supported proposition "j," which created the historic
preservation position. i am working closely with san francisco architectural heritage and planning staff on legislation to improve access to the mills act, which provides aid to rigorously maintain those historic homes. i support historic preservation and truly believe that a sound preservation policy is a key part of keeping san francisco unique, interested, and vibrant. we also need to acknowledge that historic preservation is not the only important policy in san francisco. we also need to encourage housing production, affordable housing, pedestrian safety, great libraries, usable parks, and we need to make sure that each of these policies is taken
into account and balanced. we must remain in a city where young people want can settle down and raise families and of their lives. for there as been enormous amount of discussion and information about these proposals. i want to be clear about what they are and what they are not. and when they want to note because some have stated to the contrary, we do have a letter from the state historic preservation office with whom we have been working closely over the nut -- the last number of months indicating that these amendments will not in any way impact the certified local government status. in addition, of course, we are not amending ceqa.
it will continue to have significant protections for historic preservation in addition to those protections contained in these proposals today. i also want to stress that i do not think any of these proposals by nea are in the same form that they were on the day that i first proposed them. before each of these proposals we have gone through an extensive -- extensive process of dialogue and negotiation and compromise among the many stakeholders. i have done this in the way that i have approached legislation generally. you put out a proposal, you have a discussion and negotiation, and you come up with something that we can put into law. in terms of these specific proposals -- and i will not go to all of them, but the most significant ones. one is to require that before an historic district is created, we
actually engage in a formal survey with the property owners of the district to see if people who own property and live in that district support or do not support the creation of a district. this will encourage community buy-in. the goal is to have participation. the vote will not be binding, but will provide an valuable information to policymakers, including this board, in terms of deciding whether to legislate the district. i will also note that we expanded it at the request of the historic preservation commission. it will now be a vote of property owners and all other occupants, including tenants. there is a small amendment to offer today to clarify that. i have it here. i will read it into the record later on. it's basically very much
clarifies that there will be a survey conducted of property owners and occupants with the goal of at least half all property owners and half of all occupants participating. they are to be tallied separately and combined and submitted to the board of supervisors for consideration. >> and that was for an amendment to article 10. that is item no. 5 -- >> that is both 10 and 11. >> ok. >> in addition, this will increase of reach for the survey process so that the people who live in the survey areas know that they are being surveyed and what that means. in addition, to avoid gentrification of historic districts, we will provide economic hardship provisions. not all property owners are wealthy. many are on fixed incomes or
retired or unemployed. maybe they inherited the property and they do not have a lot of money. it can be a hardship for some people to be required to engage in the full historic treatment. this economic hardship provision will require that when someone demonstrates a hardship, we will work with them in a way that is -- that respects the historic integrity of the district, while also acknowledging that people should not be forced to make the choice between remaining in a -- or between leaving an historic district or being able to maintain their homes. this also has provisions for affordable housing projects to make sure that these projects, which are always cash stretched. every penny counts in producing be affordable housing that we need.
they also will be receiving consideration from the planning department, which will work with them to find affordable alternatives. this will require the evaluation of consistency with the general plan and other sustainable committee strategies, transit oriented development needs. in addition, it will make clear that when we create a district, sidewalks, streets, pedestrian ball outs are not part of that destroyed unless they are spies of a call out as character defining. we have had situations where we wanted to make pedestrian safety improvements and because something runs through a district court judges on the district, there are additional delays and expenses in evaluating that as part of the historic district even if the sidewalk is not in any way
character divining. pedestrian safety should be one of the top policy goals of the city. in addition, it will require that the planning commission and the historic preservation commission work together to craft a consistent set of local applications and an interpretation of the secretary of interior standards for the treatment of historic properties. this version of article 10 and 11 will for the very first time make sure it applies to our historic districts. it has never been required legislation before in san francisco. it now will be. it will also recognize that the secretary of interior standards may not always have perfect applicability to our unique urban setting. we should have not only our own standards, but our own standards, but our own consistent standards and